Bill would outlaw nearly all abortions

Published: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 05:29 PM.

PANAMA CITY — Two local lawmakers are backing the “Florida for Life Act,” which would prohibit abortions except in medical emergencies.

The bill (SB1056/HB395) would offer no exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking and would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s current abortion coverage for women who are a victim of rape or incest.

State Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City, who said he always has been a pro-life advocate, is cosponsoring the bill and backs it in its entirety.

“I wouldn’t have signed on to the bill as early as I did if I didn’t believe in how it was written,” he said, adding, “As the bill is written, I’m good with it.”

But, Patronis said, he “probably” could support amendments offering a rape or incest exception, and had he drafted the bill, he might have included that language.

“If it was my bill, I would be comfortable writing in an exception for rape and incest,” Patronis said.

State Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, is sponsoring the bill on the Senate side but didn’t return calls for comment Monday. The Senate version has no co-sponsors.

Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights, is sponsoring the bill in the House, where it has six cosponsors.

The bill would outlaw all forms of abortion, whether through an orally ingested pill (RU-486), surgery or any other means. Anyone who aids in, performs or even tries to perform an abortion would be committing a first-degree felony.

Further, if the woman “suffers serious bodily harm” during the procedure, the person who performs, or aids in, the abortion could receive a life sentence. If the woman’s injuries resulted in her death, the person who performed the abortion would have committed a “life felony” — punishable by 40 years to life in prison.

Also under the legislation, anyone who ran a facility where abortions were performed would be committing a first-degree felony and could receive a life sentence.

“All those are issues that I can feel comfortable with standing with Rep. Van Zant — being an advocate” of, Patronis said.

There are a few exceptions, however. Instances for legal abortions would fall within a very narrow scope and would require, in almost all cases, that two physicians sign off on the procedure. They would be required to certify “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the abortion is needed to prevent the patient’s death or carrying the fetus to term would “unreasonably reduce” the odds of treating a life-threatening illness.

Another exception would let one physician perform the abortion, provided he or she certifies a medical emergency existed and another doctor wasn’t available for a consultation before the time needed to perform the procedure.

Further, whoever performs a legal abortion would be required to be a physician, and the bill would require the patient give “voluntary and informed written consent” before the abortion took place. In cases of a mentally incompetent patient, her court-appointed guardian would give the consent. In the case of a minor, her parent or guardian would give the consent.

The bill specifies if the fetus is viable, the doctor performing the abortion would be required to exercise every effort to preserve the fetus, as if it were “intended to be born.” The bill, however, clarifies the patient’s life would be the “overriding and superior consideration.”

The bill would prohibit experimentation on any of the aborted fetuses and requires they be disposed of in a “sanitary and appropriate manner.”

Additionally, doctors and other healthcare facility personnel would be required to provide a woman or minor with information on adoption if the person says she wants an abortion or had a child that survived an attempted abortion. Providing the state’s Office of Adoption and Child Protection and giving the woman a list of attorneys available who offer volunteer services is considered compliance.

Last year, the same bill was filed in the House and Senate but didn’t receive a hearing. Still, Patronis feels it may have a chance, though he’s not brimming with confidence.

“I’ve heard that the Senate doesn’t want to take up any right-to-life issues,” he said.

PANAMA CITY — Two local lawmakers are backing the “Florida for Life Act,” which would prohibit abortions except in medical emergencies.

The bill (SB1056/HB395) would offer no exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking and would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s current abortion coverage for women who are a victim of rape or incest.

State Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City, who said he always has been a pro-life advocate, is cosponsoring the bill and backs it in its entirety.

“I wouldn’t have signed on to the bill as early as I did if I didn’t believe in how it was written,” he said, adding, “As the bill is written, I’m good with it.”

But, Patronis said, he “probably” could support amendments offering a rape or incest exception, and had he drafted the bill, he might have included that language.

“If it was my bill, I would be comfortable writing in an exception for rape and incest,” Patronis said.

State Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, is sponsoring the bill on the Senate side but didn’t return calls for comment Monday. The Senate version has no co-sponsors.

Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights, is sponsoring the bill in the House, where it has six cosponsors.

The bill would outlaw all forms of abortion, whether through an orally ingested pill (RU-486), surgery or any other means. Anyone who aids in, performs or even tries to perform an abortion would be committing a first-degree felony.

Further, if the woman “suffers serious bodily harm” during the procedure, the person who performs, or aids in, the abortion could receive a life sentence. If the woman’s injuries resulted in her death, the person who performed the abortion would have committed a “life felony” — punishable by 40 years to life in prison.

Also under the legislation, anyone who ran a facility where abortions were performed would be committing a first-degree felony and could receive a life sentence.

“All those are issues that I can feel comfortable with standing with Rep. Van Zant — being an advocate” of, Patronis said.

There are a few exceptions, however. Instances for legal abortions would fall within a very narrow scope and would require, in almost all cases, that two physicians sign off on the procedure. They would be required to certify “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the abortion is needed to prevent the patient’s death or carrying the fetus to term would “unreasonably reduce” the odds of treating a life-threatening illness.

Another exception would let one physician perform the abortion, provided he or she certifies a medical emergency existed and another doctor wasn’t available for a consultation before the time needed to perform the procedure.

Further, whoever performs a legal abortion would be required to be a physician, and the bill would require the patient give “voluntary and informed written consent” before the abortion took place. In cases of a mentally incompetent patient, her court-appointed guardian would give the consent. In the case of a minor, her parent or guardian would give the consent.

The bill specifies if the fetus is viable, the doctor performing the abortion would be required to exercise every effort to preserve the fetus, as if it were “intended to be born.” The bill, however, clarifies the patient’s life would be the “overriding and superior consideration.”

The bill would prohibit experimentation on any of the aborted fetuses and requires they be disposed of in a “sanitary and appropriate manner.”

Additionally, doctors and other healthcare facility personnel would be required to provide a woman or minor with information on adoption if the person says she wants an abortion or had a child that survived an attempted abortion. Providing the state’s Office of Adoption and Child Protection and giving the woman a list of attorneys available who offer volunteer services is considered compliance.

Last year, the same bill was filed in the House and Senate but didn’t receive a hearing. Still, Patronis feels it may have a chance, though he’s not brimming with confidence.

“I’ve heard that the Senate doesn’t want to take up any right-to-life issues,” he said.